|
Lopez, Kenia
<br />From: Tim Johnson <
<br />Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 7:24 AM
<br />To: eComment
<br />Cc: Pulido, Miguel; Sarmiento, Vicente; Penaloza, David; Iglesias, Cecilia; Solorio, Jose;
<br />Villegas, Juan; Ridge, Kristine
<br />Subject: 1 B- Cross Complaint
<br />Attachments: 158- Santa Ana Cross Complaint suing other OC Cities dtd 4.26.18.pdf; 246- SA ANA
<br />Orange Tustin Stip to extend response date to SA Suit dtd 7..... pdf; 232- SA ANA Orange
<br />Tustin Stip to extend response date to SA Suit dtd 5..... pdf
<br />Mayor, Council, and CM Ridge ... As in each of your prior closed sessions, you have the city's cross complaint in the
<br />Catholic Worker case agendized on tonight's closed session (item 113). Obviously, with the settlement also before you on
<br />agenda item 25H, this is ultimately very important. As I have suggested in the past, I believe that the council is not
<br />staying true to what it voted on in April of 2018 when it chose, after public discussion, to sue the other cities in Orange
<br />County, and the county itself, over the impact of homelessness in our community of Santa Ana. Despite voting to
<br />proceed with litigation, the city decided only to serve 3 cities (Orange, Tustin, Anaheim) and the county. Subsequently,
<br />the cities have been released due to prior settlements in the Catholic Worker case and only the county remains. By not
<br />serving the other cities, I believe that the city is allowing South County cities to continue to do what they have been
<br />doing which is to continue to disproportionately impact our city with quality of life issues as well as fiscal obligations. It
<br />has been 15 months since the city council voted to proceed with litigation yet no service of the suite on any South
<br />County city has occurred. It is time for the council to follow through on its vote to sue or to have a public discussion in
<br />an open forum on its decision not to proceed.
<br />There likely are reasons for the council to not follow through on its prior vote ... some of those reasons may be valid while
<br />others may not be in the public's eye, but the residents and businesses have a desire to know what is going on.
<br />Additionally, the city has chosen to delay indefinitely the responses from the county in the case. So essentially, we have
<br />spent the time and resources to prepare the suit, serve 4 jurisdictions, not serve any of the South County cities, released
<br />3 of the cities (likely rightfully so) and even chosen to allow the one jurisdictions that was served, and not released, to
<br />not even respond to the lawsuit. The timeline for these matters is as follows:
<br />• April 25, 2018: During Closed Session, city council voted unanimously (6-0, 1 absent) to file a cross complaint
<br />against all cities in Orange County and the County of Orange over the impact of homelessness in our city of
<br />Santa Ana
<br />• April 26, 2018: The filing actually happened in federal court. See attached document #158.
<br />• May 1, 2018: The county of Orange and the cities of Tustin, Anaheim, and Orange were served the lawsuit (no
<br />other cities including those in South County have been served). See attached document #232 indicating the
<br />service date of May 1, 2018.
<br />• May 17, 2018: The cities of Santa Ana, Tustin, Anaheim, Orange and the county of Orange agree to a response
<br />date of July 23, 2018 for the defendants to respond to the Santa Ana cross -complaint. See attached document
<br />#232.
<br />• July 11, 2018: The cities of Santa Ana, Tustin, Anaheim, Orange and the county of Orange agree to delay the
<br />response date indefinitely until such a time that the court issues an order that a responsive pleading must be
<br />filed. See attached document #246.
<br />Now, in another agenda item you will be discussing the settlement which also has ties to the city's cross complaint with
<br />the county in Section 3.3 of that settlement so we may actually have a lawsuit filed where the defendant does not even
<br />respond to such suit despite it being active for well over a year.
<br />I
<br />
|